Probably very little. #1 diesel is already cut heavily (20%?) with kerosene, to keep it liquid. If you're set on it, try mixing up a quart or so of it and put it in the freezer. That'll tell you what you want to know without wasting a significant amount of fuel, or having to worry about a frozen fuel system.

(the fuel freezing problem is another reason why you see big rigs running continuously in zero-degree weather. "Thawing" 200 gallons of gelled #2 diesel is a 2-day headache.)

-blaine

 

#1 Diesel seems to be predominately Kerosene according to the info in the link below (paragraph near bottom on page 3), and it is intended for sale in colder climates:

http://www.satobiodiesel.co.za/downloads/lubricity.pdf

MSDS for No. 1 Diesel:
http://www.petrocard.com/Products/MSDSNo1Diesel.pdf


I would still do the mix test in a bottle at a cold temperature, but I am generally pretty cautious. Wonder if the wife would mind a jar in the freezer????

Also from another link:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/analysis...sel/index.html

About 11 percent of the weight of B100 is oxygen. The presence of oxygen in biodiesel improves combustion and therefore reduces hydrocarbon, carbon monoxide, and particulate emissions; but oxygenated fuels also tend to increase nitrogen oxide emissions. Engine tests have confirmed the expected increases and decreases of each exhaust component from engines without emissions controls. Biodiesel users also note that the exhaust smells better than the exhaust from engines burning conventional diesel.15


Lastly (from an article I copied and am trying to find the link again), more than most folks would ever want to know about why biodiesel improves lubricity:

Technical Abstract: An alternative diesel fuel that is steadily gaining attention and significance is biodiesel which is defined as the mono-alkyl esters of vegetable oils and animal fats. Previous literature states that biodiesel can, at low blend levels, restore lubricity to (ultra-) low-sulfur petroleum-derived diesel (petrodiesel) fuels, which have poor lubricity. This feature has been discussed as a major technical advantage of biodiesel. In this work, the lubricity of numerous fatty compounds is studied and compared to hydrocarbon compounds as they can be found in petroleum-derived diesel fuels. Lubricity was determined by means of the HFRR (high-frequency reciprocating rig; ASTM D 6079, ISO 12156) test. Effects of blending some compounds found in biodiesel and petrodiesel on lubricity were also studied. Dibenzothiophene, a sulfur-containing compound in non-desulfurized petrodiesel, does not enhance lubricity of petrodiesel. Fatty compounds possess better lubricity than hydrocarbons, which is attributed to the polarity-imparting oxygen atoms. Neat free fatty acids, monoacylglycerols and glycerol possess better lubricity than fatty esters due to their free OH groups. Lubricity improves somewhat with chain length and presence of double bonds. To determine which structural features enhance lubricity, beyond the fatty compounds and hydrocarbons several oxygenated C10 compounds were studied by HFRR. The following order of oxygenated moieties enhancing lubricity was established: COOH > CHO > OH > COOCH3 > C=O > C-O-C. Oxygen is more effective than nitrogen and sulfur in enhancing lubricity as results on neat C3 compounds with OH, NH2, and SH groups show. Adding commercial biodiesel improves lubricity of low-sulfur petrodiesel more than neat fatty esters, which indicates that other biodiesel components are responsible for its lubricity enhancement at low blend levels. Adding glycerol to a neat ester, which in turn is added at low blend levels to low-lubricity petrodiesel, did not improve lubricity of petrodiesel. However, adding polar compounds such as free fatty acids or monoacylglycerols increases lubricity of a low-level blend of an ester in low-lubricity petrodiesel. Therefore, some materials (free fatty acids, monoacylglycerols) considered contaminants resulting from production of biodiesel are the species responsible for the lubricity of biodiesel at low blend levels with (ultra-)low sulfur diesel fuels. Commercial biodiesel is required at levels of 1-2% in low-lubricity petrodiesel, which exceeds typical additive levels, in order to achieve lubricity-imparting additive level of the biodiesel contaminants in petrodiesel.

 

TTT... this thread and link could be considered for the Tech folder, maybe?

 

couple of things bother me about this test.

it does not take into account the effects on fuel that was treated before the pump.

this scar test, how closely does it simulate real world conditions?


it does not test the other benifits of the additives.


i have used powerservice from the git go. dont know if its the best or not. seems to me truckers use the name brand products that tested poorly because they work. look at standyne, you think they dont know what works? im going to stay with it until more proof is presented that the new wonder additive is the best product.


/me wonders if opti just happened to come out at the same time as this test.

 

My thoughts exactly. Seems odd that a leading manufacturer of diesel fuel system components would sell poor quality fuel additives.

 

Now w/ you saying that. Theres not much else one could say.
Weither our fuel at the pump will score 520 or 535 it really doesnt matter. I think the first 12 brands will work. Heck PS's low score of 61 allows the fuel company's treatment fall short to 580ish and you still be at the recommended 520. However I dont think they will be that far off and might actually be alittle under. Eitherway PS which most of us use is enough.

 

Keep in mind the 520 rating was adopted as the US standard. However, the EMA wanted and recommended a 460 rating.

 

Absolutely; the 520 rating came from the fact that refiners had such a hard time maintaining lubricity without sulphur. The old LSD fuel had the 460 rating. The EMA would actually prefer even lower ratings but given the emissions pressures being brought to bear on them and the refiners they take what they can get.

 

So what are we to do. Are we to believe that the US standard is enough? I'm just trying to be realist here. I cant have batches of fuel tested, nor do I have the money to throw into a product just because some blind study says its the wonder tonic of Diesel. Kinda sounds like to me refineries needs to start thinking about adding some BIO. Maybe B5 across the board.
I use DK and I think it'll do the job. I've looked over the opti-lube site. I noticed a gallon of the product tested only treats 256 gallons of fuel. But then their summer and winter blends are lower dosages. I bet oz for oz it'll fall closer to somewhere betwen standynes score and PS.
I swear this truck is driving me crazy. Gotta do this, cant do that. Better watch out for that blah blah. This is insane.

 

what happens when the long time hardcore non-addive users that have used nothing for years start to burn out fuel systems on this stuff?

what the hell where they thinking? oh, i know, ULSD another money making scheme by the shot callers.

 

I'll let you know when and if it happens to us.
Predictions of doom and gloom, smug gasoline vehicle owners and can't run it without additive attitudes abounded when they switched us to low sulfer diesel around 1990 also.
I guess we'll see how it all shakes out.

 

Well; in all truth, the design life of the 6.0 IIRC is in the neighborhood of 350000 miles. That being said; is it reasonable to assume that the injectors will last that long regardless of what you do to your fuel? I think it probably is. For most folks 350000 miles is probably at least 12-14 years of driving. Even if after 7 or 8 if you burnt up an injector or 2 "prematurely" would you be upset? Probably not. In fact in discussions with several 6.0 gurus I have been told that at 250000-300000 miles it is almost expected to need injectors regardless. So do I think ULSD is a money making scheme, no, I think it is a result of environmental pressures causing hurried, poorly thought out decisions on the part of government forcing industry to make poorly thought out decisions.

I use additives myself; and while increased lubricity is a benefit it is not the only reason. Increased cetane rating is important to me in the winter for cold starting (I definitely noticed improvements on this front). Emulsification of water; I am frequently in backwoods areas where fuel quality is a major issue and the added insurance against water and being stranded in the middle of nowhere gives me a little more peace of mind. I also travel with a spare set of filters but that has nothing to do with additives I can also say that after I started running additives my EGR and turbo problems were massively reduced; they did not go away but they did improve substantially.